.
                           Open     Open     Open     Curr     Curr     Curr 
TEAM                       Wins     OVER     UNDR     Wins     OVER     UNDR 
-----------------------   ------   ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
Arizona Cardinals          8        -130     +110     8        -140     +120 
Atlanta Falcons            9 1/2    -110     -110     9 1/2    -130     +110 
Baltimore Ravens           9        +110     -130     9        Even     -120 
Buffalo Bills              6 1/2    -150     +130     6 1/2    -110     -110 
Carolina Panthers          9        -120     Even     9        -130     +110 
Chicago Bears              5 1/2    Even     -120     5 1/2    +130     -150 
Cincinnati Bengals         8 1/2    -110     -110     8 1/2    Even     -120 
Cleveland Browns           4 1/2    -110     -110     4 1/2    -110     -110 
Dallas Cowboys             9 1/2    -130     +110     9 1/2    -130     +110 
Denver Broncos             8        -110     -110     8        -140     +120 
Detroit Lions              7 1/2    -110     -110     7 1/2    -125     +105 
Green Bay Packers         10 1/2    +110     -130    10 1/2    +110     -130 
Houston Texans             8        -120     Even     8 1/2    -120     Even 
Indianapolis Colts         8 1/2    +120     -140     8 1/2    Even     -120 
Jacksonville Jaguars       6 1/2    -150     +130     6 1/2    -135     +115 
Kansas City Chiefs         9        -110     -110     9        -140     +120 
Los Angeles Chargers       7 1/2    -110     -110     7 1/2    -110     -110 
Los Angeles Rams           6        +110     -130     6        +120     -140 
Miami Dolphins             7        -120     Even     7 1/2    +120     -140 
Minnesota Vikings          8 1/2    +120     -140     8 1/2    Even     -120 
New England Patriots      12 1/2    Even     -120    12 1/2    Even     -120 
New Orleans Saints         8        -110     -110     8        +110     -130 
N Y Giants                 8 1/2    -110     -110     8 1/2    -145     +125 
N Y Jets                   5        -110     -110     4 1/2    +175     -200 
Oakland Raiders            9 1/2    -110     -110     9 1/2    -125     +105 
Philadelphia Eagles        8        -120     Even     8        -130     +110 
Pittsburgh Steelers       10 1/2    -130     +110    10 1/2    -140     +120 
San Francisco 49ers        5        Even     -120     5        +130     -150 
Seattle Seahawks          10 1/2    -130     +110    10 1/2    -130     +110 
Tampa Bay Buccaneers       8        +120     -140     8        -140     +120 
Tennessee Titans           8 1/2    -130     +110     8 1/2    -130     +110 
Washington Redskins        7 1/2    -110     -110     7 1/2    -110     -110 



NOTES:  
=============================================================================
The following teams have had their Total Wins INCREASE since the Opening --

Houston from 8 to 8 1/2
Miami from 7 to 7 1/2



The following team(s) have had their Total Wins DECREASE since the Opening

New York Jets from 5 to 4 1/2

In approaching an analysis of playing individual teams to go Over or Under their respective win totals, several global perspectives need to be looked at first.

One key thing to keep in mind is that the public is usually geared to thinking in the positive -- i.e. that things will happen rather than that they won't. In other words, much as the public tends to prefer Favorites over Underdogs in betting the pointspread, and tends to prefer betting Over the Total Points as opposed to Under the Total Points in individual games, the Team Over/Under wins are geared more to betting the Over rather than the Under, be it in terms of the number of wins or the "vig" attached to the Over vs the Under.

In seasons prior to 2007 there had been huge biases towards the OVER that resulted in the best values by far being found in playing the UNDERs.

In recent years the public -- especially the so-called "Wise Guys" part of the public -- has become more enlightened about sports betting in general, and Over/Under Season Wins in particular.

In 2016 the total number of projected wins for all 32 teams summed to 260 for the Opening numbers.

In 2015 the total number of projected wins for all 32 teams summed to 262 1/2 for the Opening numbers.

In 2014 the total number of projected wins for all 32 teams summed to 258 for the Opening numbers.

In 2013 they summed to 260. In 2012 they summed to 258. In 2011 the number summed to 260. In 2010 they summed to 257 1/2. In 2009, they summed to 256.5. In 2008, that number summed to 252.5.

In prior seasons it was not unusual for the "projected" wins to total in the mid to upper 260's.

A look at the "vig" attached to the Overs and Unders shows that there has been a shift in that rather than having the public play OVER inflated Win Total numbers, the public must now pay an unusually high "vig" to play OVER more realistic (and slightly lower) Win Totals. More about this shortly as this has become a major change/development.

For 2017 the total wins sums to 258 1/2 for the Opening numbers. Since then, as noted above, 2 teams have had their Total Wins increase by 1/2 win each with 1 team having a decrease of 1/2 win, thus the "current" Total Wins for 2017 has increased to 259.

Barring any games that end in ties, there can only be 256 wins accumulated by the league as a whole, 256 being the total number of regular season games to be played.

Thus there is an imbalance with a bias towards the OVER. With 260 projected wins there are also just 252 projected losses (see the "Projected Standings," below).

There was a slight bias towards the UNDER in 2008 which means that on a global basis there was slight value in betting the OVER.

In 2009 and again in 2010 there were slight biases the other way meaning that the global value was in betting the UNDER as the Total Projected Wins totalled slightly more than the possible total wins of 256.

In 2011 there was a bias towards the OVER with 260 projected wins (providing some value to playing the UNDER) as was also the case in 2012 when 258 total wins were projected and in 2013 when the Total projected wins summed to 260.

Again in 2014 there was a slight initial bias to the OVER with the projection of 258 Total wins. Similarly, in 2015, the bias was towards the OVER with the projection of 262 1/2 Total wins. And again in 2016 there was a bais towards the OVER with the Opening Wins summing to 260.

In 2017 once again the bias is again towards the OVER, though less than in the past few seasons, with the Total Wins summing to 258 1/2 at the Opening Totals and a bit more to the OVER with the "current" 259 --- 3 games more than the 256 the league as a whole can win, thus providing slight "numerical" value in playing the UNDER.

Going even further, using the "Current -- July 3, 2017" Total Wins, above, if one were to bet EVERY TEAM TO GO OVER their total by simply the minimum amount possible (1/2 game for teams lines at 1/2 wins and 1 game for teams lined at whole numbers), it would take 280 wins overall to cash every ticket, or a league record for 256 games of 280-232, a variance of 48 games. If you were to bet EVERY TEAM OVER the total and those teams with whole numbers for their projected wins landed exactly on those numbers and teams with 1/2 wins went over by the minimum of 1/2 game you are still looking at a total number of 270 to WIN or PUSH betting EVERY team to go OVER their Total, a variance of 28 games (270-242) from the 256 being played (this would result in 22 wining plays and 10 pushes -- the 22 wins resulting from the 22 teams with 1/2 wins and the 10 pushes resulting from the 10 teams that are lined at whole numbers).

Obviously this is impossible but compare this scenario to betting UNDER for EVERY TEAM in which case the total number of wins needed to cash every ticket drops to 238, or an overall record of 238-274, a spread of 36 games. To WIN or PUSH EVERY TEAM going UNDER its Total would require a total of 248 wins, a variance of only 16 games (248-264) from the total number of 256 games to be played (this would result in the same 22 wins and 10 pushes since, obviously, only the 22 teams with "half games" would not result in those Pushes).

"Globally" there is slight value in 2017 in playing the UNDER with the Total Wins projected at 259 (i.e. a league record of 259 - 253) which is 3 games more than the maximum number of possible wins, 256.



One way to get an overview of what the linesmaker expects is to recast the above table in the form of projected standings, division by division.

By doing this exercise we get the following projections.

.
   AFC EAST                           NFC EAST                           
   --------------  ------------       --------------  ------------       
   New England     12.5 -  3.5        Dallas           9.5 -  6.5        
   Miami            7.5 -  8.5        N Y Giants       8.5 -  7.5        
   Buffalo          6.5 -  9.5        Philadelphia     8.0 -  8.0        
   N Y Jets         4.5 - 11.5        Washington       7.5 -  8.5        


   AFC NORTH                          NFC NORTH                          
   --------------  ------------       --------------  ------------       
   Pittsburgh      10.5 -  5.5        Green Bay       10.5 -  5.5        
   Baltimore        9.0 -  7.0        Minnesota        8.5 -  7.5        
   Cincinnati       8.5 -  7.5        Detroit          7.5 -  8.5        
   Cleveland        4.5 - 11.5        Chicago          5.5 - 10.5        


   AFC SOUTH                          NFC SOUTH                          
   --------------  ------------       --------------  ------------       
   Houston          8.5 -  7.5        Atlanta          9.5 -  6.5        
   Indianapolis     8.5 -  7.5        Carolina         9.0 -  7.0        
   Tennessee        8.5 -  7.5        New Orleans      8.0 -  8.0        
   Jacksonville     6.5 -  9.5        Tampa Bay        8.0 -  8.0        


   AFC WEST                           NFC WEST                           
   --------------  ------------       --------------  ------------       
   Oakland          9.5 -  6.5        Seattle         10.5 -  5.5        
   Kansas City      9.0 -  7.0        Arizona          8.0 -  8.0        
   Denver           8.0 -  8.0        L A Rams         6.0 - 10.0        
   L A Chargers     7.5 -  8.5        San Francisco    5.0 - 11.0        

By looking at the projected standings we can often spot teams that look out of place. Such teams are not necessarily those that are predicted to win Divisions but rather may be teams projected to finish second or teams projected to finish last.

Note that Divisional realignment in 2002 created eight Divisions, each with exactly four teams, producing 4 Division winners and 2 Wild Card teams from each Confernece in the Playoffs. This represented a dramatic change from the prior alignment which featured five Divisions of five teams each and one Division of six teams and sent 3 Division winners and 3 Wild Cards from to the Playoffs from each Conference.

Aside from the 6 games against their Divisional rivals, all teams within a Division play 8 of their 10 non-Divisional games against the same 8 opponents -- 4 games against a specific Division within their conference and 4 "interconference" games against a specific Division in the other Conference. The other 2 games Conference gamesand are based upon a team's finish the previous season such that a team will play the team that finished in the same Divisional position in the other 2 Divisions within the same conference.

Thus, in 2017 all 4 teams in the AFC East, in addition to the 6 Divisional games against one another, will play all 4 teams in the NFC South and all 4 teams in the AFC West. New England, which finished first last season in the AFC East, will also play the first place finishers in the AFC North (Pittsburgh) and the AFC South (Houston). Miami, which finished second in the AFC East in 2016 will also play the sedonc place finishers from the AFC North (Baltimore) and the AFC South (Tennessee). Third place Buffalo's two "non-common opponents" are Cincinnati and Indianapolis while the last place New York Jets will face Cleveland and Jacksonville.

For many seasons after the concept of Season Win Totals was introduced there was a built in value in playing teams UNDER their season win totals as the sum of all team's projected wins would be significantly greater than the total number of games that would be played during an NFL season.

For example, 32 teams playing a 16 game schedule results in a total of 256 regular season games. Often the total projected wins for the 32 teams would sum to the mid to upper 260's. In fact, between 2002 (the first season of 32 teams with the addition of the Houston Texans) through 2006 the sum of Projected Total Wins was been between 261 and 267. In 2007 we saw the sum drop to 257 1/2, just a game and a half more than the number of games to be played, but still with the slightest of edges towards playing the UNDER. But in 2008 the sum was just 252 -- actually creating an edge to the OVER. And in 2009 and 2010 the sum was virtually right on the 256 games that will be played during the regular season. For 2011 the Total Wins summed to 260, for the 2012 season the Opening Totals sum to 258, for 2013 they summed to 260. In 2014 they summed to 258 and they summed to 262 1/2 in 2015. In 2016 the Opening Totals summed to 260 and in 2017 the Opening Totals summed to 258 1/2.

As just noted, In 2008 this shift towards lower Projected Total Wins continued to a point where there was a numerical edge in playing the OVER. Summing the 32 Projected Win Totals yielded a result of just 252 total wins -- 4 fewer than the number of games to be played. But rather than blindly conclued that there was now an edge in playing the OVER, closer inspection showed that any such edge was all but wiped out by the "vig" attached to playing the OVER.

A look at the first chart above ("Opening and Current Totals") shows that for 20 of the 32 teams bettors must lay a vig to play the OVER (using the Current July 3, 2017 Lines). For 7 teams is there a "plus" price on the OVER with 5 teams being priced at "Even Money" for the OVER.

Compare that to playing the UNDER and we see that there are only 16 teams that require the bettor to lay a vig to play the UNDER while the other 18 teams are either priced with a "plus" price (15 teams) or are at Even Money (1 team) to play the UNDER.

Thus for 2017 there are both a numerical value and a price value in looking to play UNDERs!

Note that for 4 teams you would have to lay some "vig" on both the OVER and the UNDER where the prices are -110 each way or a split of -115/-105 (Buffalo, Cleveland, the L A Chargers and Washington).

A look at the past 19 seasons of NFL Season Win Totals (603 team seasons from 1998 through 2016) there have been 283 OVERs, 296 UNDERs and 24 PUSHes -- nearly a 50/50 split that has averaged basically one-half more UNDER than OVER per season for the 19 seasons, a pretty remarkable testament to the NFL as a league of parity. And to the abilities of the oddsmakers. As we know, the closer results come to being 50/50, the better the Sports Books generally fare.

In 2016 if you played EVERY team to go OVER its Total, using $100 as a standard unit of play (risking more than $100 to win $100 when laying vig or laying $100 to win $100 or more when playing even money or 'plus' teams) -- using the then Current (June 27, 2016) Win Totals and Vigs from last season's study -- you would have risked a total of $ 3,865 to win $ 3,355 (by wagering $ 2,965 to win $ 2,300 on the 23 teams with minus vig, $ 600 to win $ 755 on the 6 teams with "plus" vig and $ 300 to win $ 300 on the 3 teams at Even Money).

Had you played every team to stay UNDER its Total you would have risked a total of $ 3,585 to win $ 3,455 (by wagering $ 1,785 to win $ 1,400 on the 14 teams with a "minus" vig, $ 1,400 to win $ 1,655 on the 15 teams with a plus vig and $ 400 to win $ 400 on the 4 teams at Even Money).


For 2017 if you play EVERY team to go OVER its Total, using $100 as a standard unit of play (as just described) -- using the Current (July 3, 2017) Win Totals and Vigs as per above -- you would be risking a total of $ 3,770 to win $ 3,395 (by wagering $ 2,570 to win $ 2,000 on the 20 teams with minus vig, $ 700 to win $ 895 on the 7 teams with "plus" vig and $ 500 to win $ 500 on the 3 teams at Even Money).

To play every team to stay UNDER you would be risking a total of $ 3,680 to win $ 3,410 (by wagering $ 2,080 to win $ 1,600 on the 16 teams with a "minus" vig, $ 1,500 to win $ 1,710 on the 15 teams with a plus vig and $ 100 to win $ 100 on the 1 team at Even Money).


As noted above, what we have seen more and more in recent seasons is a major shift in setting season Total Wins.

Recognizing that the public generally prefers to bet the OVER, and recognizing that over the long run there will be nearly the same number of teams going OVER their Total Wins as will be staying UNDER, the Sports Books attaching more of a "minus" vig to playing the OVER results in a greater bottom line as the public remains willing to pay that vig to play the OVER.

What the Books may give up in terms of perhaps one additional OVER winner they will more than make up for in the added "net" vig they will collect on the OVER losers.

Interestingly for 2011 there was more "minus vig" on more teams attached to playing the UNDER rather than the OVER, in contrast to the prior few seasons (and in 2012, 2013, 2014 and again in 2015), perhaps largely due to the uniqueness of 2011 created by the prolonged lockout that eliminated all activities for nearly all 5 months of the off-season.

In 2012 and again in 2013 we saw a return to attaching a much greater overall vig to playing the OVER than to playing the UNDER which continued in 2014 and again in 2015 although the gap in "minus vig" between OVERs and UNDERs has been reduced. In 2016 there was a significant gap between the 23 teams that carried a 'minus vig' on playing the OVER ($2,965) and the 14 teams that carried a 'minus vig' to play the UNDER ($1,785).

And as the above chart shows, for 2017 the cost to play OVER the Total for the 20 teams carrying a "vig" on the OVER ($2,570) is considerably greated than the total cost to play the UNDER for the 16 teams that have a "vig" attached to the UNDER ($2,080).

Thus, over time, from a "vig" standpoint it has become even more attractive to seek out UNDERs as we are more likely to get them at Even Money or better, even though we may be playing UNDER a number that could be a half game lower than in the past (no way of knowing this, of course, as every season sets up uniquely, but the half game is a reasonable estimate based on the decline in the overall total of projected wins from the mid 260's to the mid 250's to 260 range).

At the same time, it becomes imperative to proceed cautiously when considering an OVER play as we must now pay a higher price than in the past to back the OVER, even though we may be playing OVER a number that is roughly a half game lower than it might have been in the past (for the same reason as just mentioned for the UNDERs). As noted before, the reverse was the case for the unique 2011 season.

Therefore, we have seen a tradeoff involving the number of projected wins and the vigorish attached.

The approach we outline and discuss below regarding Playoff teams, combined with the detailed history we will provide, is still a valid way of looking for teams to play OVER their Totals while at the same time our similarly outlined approach to playing UNDERs offers greater returns due to the increased "plus" vigs.

In the past, our general approach was twofold -- to look for teams that figure to struggle and thus teams to be played Under their Total, taking advantage of the built in value in the Under. But there is also a strategy geared towards finding teams that may be played Over their Total. This strategy involves looking for teams that you expect to make the Playoffs and has a total wins listed of 9 games or less.

In most seasons it will take at least 10 wins to qualify for a Wild Card. In fact, since the NFL adopted its present Playoff format of 12 teams (6 division winners and 6 Wild Cards beginning in 1990, since modified in 2002 with Realignment to 8 Division winners and 4 Wild Card teams but still producing 12 Playoff teams each season) there have been 324 teams to make the Playoffs in those 27 seasons. Of those 324 teams, 265 of them had at least 10 wins and another 47 teams had exactly 9 wins. Only 12 teams made the Playoffs with 8-8 records or worse (including San Diego, winner of the AFC West at 8-8 in 2008, 7-9 Seattle, winner of NFC West in 2010, 8-8 Denver, winner of the AFC West in 2011, 8-7-1 Green Bay, winner of the NFC North in 2013 and 7-8-1 Carolina, winner of the NFC South in 2014).

Looked at another way, 81.8% of all Playoff teams won at least 10 games and 96.2% of all Playoff teams won at least 9 games. Only 3.8% of all Playoff teams over the past 27 seasons made the Playoffs with fewer than 9 wins.

Thus in looking to play teams OVER their posted wins total the best strategy is to look for team with a good chance of making the Playoffs and whose win totals are 9 or less. Generally these teams will have win totals between 7 and 9 (with 8 1/2 an especially appealing number).

Remember that 9 wins for a Playoff team should at least get you a 'push' on the Over and you have roughly a 4 in 5 chance of cashing your ticket should your team make the Playoffs since teams making the Playoffs have won at least 10 games over 80% of the time.

In looking at teams you may expect to make the Playoffs use history as a guide. Since the NFL expanded to include 12 teams in the Playoffs in 1990 only an average of 6.4 teams (53.3 %) make it back to the Playoffs the following season after a Playoff appearance. That is, of the 12 Playoff teams from 2016 (Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit, Green Bay, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, New England, the New York Giants, Oakland Pittsburgh and Seattle) only 6 or 7 of them can be expected to again make the Playoffs in 2016. Only three times -- in 1995, 2012 and 2015 -- did as many as 8 of 12 Playoff teams make the Playoffs for at least a second straight season, although 2 of the 3 occurrences were in the past 5 seasons. Only in 2003 did as few as 4 teams repeat while in 1999, 2005, 2006 and 2008 just 5 teams repeated from the previous season. Thus, 6 or 7 teams from 2016 can be expected to make the Playoffs in 2017 with 5 or 6 teams failing to do so, based on the 26 season averages.

As far as current "trends" are concerned it is worth noting that 7 Playoff teams from 2012 again made the Playoffs in 2013 and that was repeated again in 2014 when 7 of the teams that made the Playoffs in 2013 made them again in 2014 such that in 5 of the last 7 seasons either 7 or 8 teams repeated their Playoff appearance from one season to the next.

Thus over the past 5 seasons -- 2012 through 2016 -- of a possible 60 total teams that could have repeated making the Playoffs (12 per season), 36 of those teams did repeat. That "recency rate" of 60.0 % might be suggesting that the NFL has been drifting further away from the relative parity that had existed over the previous 7 seasons when 40 of 84 possible teams repeated (47.6 %).

Could we indeed be entering an era of 'non-parity' but rather of 'haves and have nots?' It's a very small sample size but the results over the past 5 seasons might be part of a case that answers that question with a "yes."

You might wish to focus your OVER plays on teams you think might make the Playffs this season after having missed out last season, some of which may have relatively low Totals because of their failure to make the 2016 Playoffs. Over the past couple of decades there has been a high degree of parity in the NFL although the above numbers for the past 5 seasons appears to lessen that degree.

Over the past 3 seasons (2014 through 2016) 20 different teams have made the Playoffs, filling the 36 available spots. Put another way, 62.5 % of the NFL's 32 teams have made the Playoffs over just the past 3 seasons. The OVER Season Wins Total becomes more of a value if you are able to identify those teams that did not make the Playoffs last season but may have made them 2 or 3 seasons ago and appear to be improved entering this season.

Arizona, Carolina, Cincinnati, Denver, Minnesota and Washington are the 6 teams that made the Playoffs in 2015 that did not make the Playoffs in 2016, replaced by Atlanta, Dallas, Detroit, Miami, the New York Giants and Oakland.

Green Bay, Houston, Kansas City, New England, Pittsburgh and Seattle made the Playoffs in both 2015 and 2016.

Baltimore, Dallas, Detroit and Indianapolis are the 4 teams that made the Playoffs in 2014 but missed the Playoffs in 2015, replaced by Houston, Kansas City, Minnesota and Washington.

Arizona, Carolina, Denver, Green Bay, New England, Pittsburgh and Seattle made the Playoffs in both 2014 and 2015 (although note that Carolina made the 2014 Playoffs as Division winner of the NFC South with a 7-8-1 record).

Kansas City, Philadelphia, New Orleans, San Diego and San Francisco are the 5 teams that made the Playoffs in 2013 but missed them in 2014, replaced by Arizona, Baltimore, Dallas, Detroit and Pittsburgh as teams that made the Playoffs in 2014 after having missed the Playoffs in 2013.

Carolina, Cincinnati, Denver, Green Bay, Indianapolis, New England and Seattle are the 7 teams that made the Playoffs in both 2013 and 2014.

Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Minnesota and Washington were the 5 teams that made the 2012 Playoffs but did not repeat in 2013. Detroit, New Orleans, the New York Giants and Pittsburgh were the 4 teams that made the Playoffs in 2011 but missed them in 2012.

Of the 12 teams that did not make the Playoffs in 2014, 2015 or 2016, 4 teams (New Orleans, Philadelphia, the San Diego/Los Angeles Chargers and San Francisco) last made the Playoffs in 2013.

Thus 24 of the NFL's 32 teams (75%) have made the Playoffs at least once in the past 4 seasons!

Only 8 teams have not made the Playoffs in any of the past 4 seasons. Those teams, and the season in which they last made the Playoffs, are as follows, shown in order of their most recent season to make the Playoffs --

Chicago -- 2010
N Y Jets -- 2010
Tennessee -- 2008
Jacksonville -- 2007
Tampa Bay -- 2007
St Louis/L A Rams -- 2004
Cleveland -- 2002
Buffalo -- 1999

Note that in 2010 Tampa Bay went 10-6 but missed the Playoffs due to tie breakers! The New York Jets were 10-6 in 2015 but also missed the Playoffs due to tie breakers.

It is often easier to decide on teams to play UNDER the total for several reasons.

Most developments during the season tend to be negative, generally in the form of extended or season-ending injuries. In looking for teams to play UNDER it is often a good strategy to look for teams that don't have much depth at several positions, especially at QB and other skill positions. A change in coaching staff or replacing of key players from the prior season can often lead to a slow start out of the gate.

Let's look at the opposite of the statistics that define likely Playoff teams.

Between 1990 and 2016 there have been 833 individual team seasons. 187 of those teams, or 22.5%, have won 5 or fewer games in a season. And 125 of those 187 teams (66.8 % of that group and 15.0% of the overall 833 total teams) have won just 4 or fewer games. Historically, the LOWEST Over/Under Season Win Total had been either 5 or 5 1/2 games although Cleveland was at 4 1/2 wins in 2016 and the Browns, along with the New York Jets, are held at 4 1/2 wins for this season (2017).

Using the historical percentage of 22.5% it is projected that 6 or 7 teams should win 5 or fewer games in 2017 with 4 or 5 of those teams winning 4 or fewer games. As just noted, only 2 teams -- Cleveland and the N Y Jets -- are currently projected to win fewer than 5 games (4 1/2) and only 1 other team (San Francisco) is projected to win 5. Only 1 other team (Chicago, at 5 1/2) is projected to win fewer than 6 games, meaning that just 4 teams are projected at fewer than 6 wins even though historically 6 or 7 teams win 5 or fewer games and on average 10 teams win 6 or fewer games!

Note that in each of the last 6 seasons and in 9 of the last 10 seasons at least 7 teams have won fewer than 6 games.

In each season since 1990 there have been at least 2 teams that won 4 or fewer games and at least 4 teams that won 5 or less.

Since Divisional realignment in 2002 (15 seasons) at least 3 teams have won 4 or fewer games and at least 6 teams have won 5 or fewer.

Thus we can expect that 3 or 4 teams will win 4 or fewer games in 2017 and that another 2 or 3 teams will win exactly 5 games.

Last season (2016) saw 5 teams win 4 or fewer games and another 2 teams win exactly 5 games.

The most likely prospects to win 5 or fewer games would generally be teams projected at 7 or 7 1/2 wins or less.

In considering teams to make the Playoffs in 2017 note that only New England has a Season Win Total of 11 or higher (12 1/2). The next 3 highest teams all have a Wins Total of 10 1/2 (Green Bay, Pittsburgh and Seattle). No team is at exactly 10 and just 3 teams are at 9 1/2 (meaning they would need to win 10 or more games to cash the OVER -- Atlanta, Dallas and Oakland). 3 teams -- Baltimore, Carolina and Kansas City -- would also need to win 10 games to cash an OVER ticket but would PUSH with 9 wins.

In 2016 a total of 10 teams won 10 or more games, led by eventual Super Bowl Champion New England which went 14-2 in the regular season. Dallas won 13 games and both Oakland and Kansas City won 12 games with Kansas City winning the AFC West Title due to tie breakers. All 10 of the double digit win teams made the Playoffs as did a pair of 9 win teams. Houston won the AFC South with a 9-7 record while Detroit, also9-7, captured the second NFC Wild Card.

In 2015 a total of 11 teams won 10 or more games with Carolina having the best record at 15-1. Arizona won 13 games and a trio of teams -- Cincinnati, Denver and New England -- each won 12 games. Of the 11 double digit win teams only the 10-6 New York Jets failed to make the Playoffs, losing the AFC East title to New England and losing out on a Wild Card to Pittsburgh. 2 Division winners -- Houston in the AFC South and Washington in the NFC East -- each made the Playoffs with a record of 9-7.

In 2014 12 teams won 10 or more games with 5 of those teams winning a league high 12 games. Of the 12 double digit win teams only Philadelphia failed to make the Playoffs. The Eagles were 10-6 but lost the NFC East title to Dallas and missed out on the Wild Card as both Arizona and Detroit went 11-5 but not winning their Divisions and thus earning the two NFC Wild Cards. The other Playoff team was Carolina, which won the weak NFC South with a 7-8-1 record.

In 2013 there were 11 teams that won 10 or more games with 5 of those teams winning at least 12 games. Only 10-6 Arizona failed to make the Playoffs as the 2 NFL Wild Card teams won 12 games (San Francisco) and 11 games (New Orleans). Only one team won exactly 9 games last season and that team, San Diego, made the Playoffs as an AFC Wild Card. The other team to make the Playoffs with fewer than 10 wins was Green Bay whose 8-7-1 record was good enough to win the Division title in the NFC North.

In 2012 there were 13 teams that won 10 or more games with 4 of those teams winning at least 12 games. Only 10-6 Chicago failed to make the Playoffs, losing out on tie-breakers to Division rival Minnesota. No team that made the Playoffs in 2012 won fewer than 10 games. Only 1 team won exactly 9 games in 2012 and that team, the New York Giants, failed to make the Playoffs. 7 teams won 5 or fewer games in 2012.

In 2011 there were 9 teams that won 10 or more games, including 6 that won at least a dozen (tying 2003 for the greatest number of teams to win at least 12 games since the Playoff format was revised in 1990). 7 teams won 5 or fewer games in 2011. One AFC team that won 9 games, Tennessee, failed to make the Playoffs although 8-8 Denver did make them as winners of the AFC West (winning the tie breaker versus both Oakland and San Diego, each of whom were also 8-8). In the NFC only one team finished 9-7 and that team, the New York Giants, not only made the Playoffs but went on to win the Super Bowl. No other NFC team won 9 or more games and missed the Playoffs last season.

In 2010 there were 13 teams that won 10 or more games and 6 teams that won 5 or fewer. The New York Giants and Tampa Bay became only the seventh and eighth teams to win at least 10 games and not make the Playoffs.

In 2009 there 10 teams that won at least 10 games (all made the Playoffs) and 8 that won 5 or less.

In 2008 there were 10 teams that won at least 10 games and 8 teams that won 5 or less. The New England Patriots became just the sixth teams since to win at least 10 games and not make the Playoffs. In fact, the Patriots were 11-5 but lost the AFC East title to Miami, also 11-5, on tie breakers. Unfortunately for the Pats Indianapolis earned the first AFC Wild Card with a 12-4 record and theBaltimore, also 11-5 like the Patriots, earned the second Wild Card on tie breakers.

In 2007 there were 8 teams with 5 or fewer wins and 10 teams with 10 or more wins. 10-6 Cleveland became the fifth team since 1990 to win 10 games and not make the Playoffs. The previous 4 such teams also won exactly 10 games -- San Francisco and Philadelphia in 1991, Miami in 2003, Kansas City in 2005).

Obviously 2002's Divisional realignment meant that a different type of analysis was needed to project how a team will fare in total wins over the course of a season and what number of wins will be needed to make the Playoffs. Realignment radically altered scheduling dynamics and how teams will qualify for the Playoffs. For example, from 1990 through 2001 every team played at least half of their games against Division rivals. Now a team plays only 6 of their 16 games against Division foes so by definition Divisional games are not as important as they had been in the past in regards to making the Playoffs is concerned. Division games still are important in determining Division winners.

Also, the Playoff field is now comprised of 8 Division winners and 4 Wild Cards instead of 6 and 6. Thus we might see teams in a relatively weak Division reach the Playoffs by winning the Division with a record of just 8-8 as Denver did in 2011 and as San Diego did in 2008. In 2013 Green Bay won its Division with an 8-7-1 record. And in 2010 Seattle became the first team with a losing record (7-9) to make the Playoffs because they played in the incredibly weak NFL West which had a woeful 13-27 record in non-Divisional play. Seattle's woeful 2010 record was only slightly better than the 7-8-1 record fashioned by Carolina in winning the 2014 NFC South.

Since the Playoffs field was expanded to 12 teams in 1990 only a dozen teams have made the Playoffs with fewer than 9 wins -- 10 with 8 wins and 2 with 7, the 7-win teams having won Division titles. The 8 win teams were a mixture of Division winners and Wild Cards.

It is possible that a team could finish second in a division with a 10-6 or 11-5 record but not make the Playoffs, such as was the case with 11-5 New England in 2008. In losing QB Tom Brady in the first half of their 2008 season opener, the Patriots -- who had gone 16-0 in the regular season in 2007 -- still managed to win 11 games but lost the AFC East on tie breakers to Miami and also lost out for the second Wild Card on tie breakers to Baltimore (Indianapolis earned the first Wild Card with a 12-4 record that was second to Tennessee's 13-3 in the AFC South). Under the circumstances in which an elite QB was lost, not in the pre-season but in the regular season opener -- Bill Belichick may have performed the greatest single season coaching job in NFL history, even topping the 16-0 regular season of a year earlier.

In 2015 the 10-6 New York Jets finished second to New England in the AFC East and lost a Wild Card on tiebreakers. In 2014 Philadelphia finished second in the NFC East at 10-6 but missed the Playoffs. A season earlier, in 2013, Arizona finished third in the NFC West with a 10-6 record yet did not make the Playoffs.

Remember, there are now 4 second place teams in each conference, not just 3. Prior to 2002 it was possible for the top two finishers in EACH of the 3 Divisions to make the Playoffs. Such is no longer the case.

In 2002, for example, the New York Jets made the Playoffs with just a 9-7 record by virtue of being the AFC East champions. However, no team with more than 9 wins missed the Playoffs in 2002. In 2003 only one 10 win team -- Miami -- failed to make the Playoffs and no team with 9 or fewer wins made the Playoffs. The same was true in 2005 when Kansas City's 10 wins did not get them into the Playoffs but also no team with 9 or fewer wins made the field either. In 2006 the New York Giants made the Playoffs with just 8 wins. In 2007 Cleveland missed the Playoffs despite 10 wins but no 9 win team failed to make the Playoffs. In 2008 11-5 New England missed the Playoffs while 8-8 San Diego made them. The 2008 New York Jets also missed the Playoffs despite their 9-7 record being better than that of the Chargers. And in 2010 both the Giants and Tampa Bay missed the Playoffs with 10-6 records while NFC West champion Seattle made them with a 7-9 record. In fact, 18 other teams had the same or a better record than Seattle while just 13 teams had a weaker record. In 2011 Denver won the AFC West with an 8-8 record but Tennessee, second place finisher in the AFC South, missed the Playoffs with a 9-7 record. In 2012 Chicago missed the Playoffs with a 10-6 record. Such was also the case in 2013 when Arizona finished 10-6 but missed the Playoffs as did 10-6 Philadelphia in 2014 and the New York Jets in 2015.


In analyzing a team's schedule, as noted earlier, teams in the same Division have 8 common opponents plus two games against each of their 3 Division rivals with just two "unique" opponents based upon the prior season's standings.


Our Recommendations and Opinions are available as a FREE BONUS to Subscribers to our Premium Selections Service or to one or more of our Weekly Newsletters. A link to information about those offerings is included at the very top of this Article and is repeated below.

In looking at our 2017 Recommendations and Opinions note that they are presented within each of 3 categories in the chronological order in which we have reviewed the teams. The 3 categories we use are "Recommendations," "Strong Opinions" and "Weak Opinions." Unless otherwise indicated, all Recommendations and Opinions are weighted and rated equally within each group.

As a means of comparing how to consider the plays within each category you might wish to view our "Recommendations" as full, one unit plays, the "Strong Opinions" as half-unit plays and the "Weak Opinions" as either quarter-unit plays or no plays at all.

In cases where the OVER or UNDER we prefer is so highly priced with the attached "vig" that we cannot fully recommend a play because of that high vig we would likely classify that play as a Strong Opinion rather than a Recommendation, worth at most a half unit play. Generally these will be plays where the OVER is priced at more than -125 or the UNDER is priced at more than - 150. For teams in which the opinion is luke warm and/or the attached vig is too high, those opinions will be classified as Weak Opinions and would be the least attractive plays to make and, if made, would be rated as a quarter unit play.

Also -- and this may be of interest to some -- do note that there may be hedging opportunities late in the season if some of our Recommendations and/or Opinions are to be decided in the final week or two.